Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Does a low IQ make you right-wing? That depends on how you define left and right
Michael Hanlon makes some interesting points below but overlooks the obvious: People with high IQs are very much advantaged in the educational system and tend to stay in that system longer. And particularly in the later years of education, the Leftist propaganda gets all but overwhelming. So all that the research really shows is that an exposure to overwhelming Leftist propaganda does influence some people's thinking. They adopt Leftist attitudes where they otherwise might not
So right-wingers are stupid – it’s official. Psychologists in Canada have compared IQ scores of several thousand British children, who were born in 1958 and 1970, with their stated views as adults on things such as treatment of criminals and openness to working with or living near to people of other races. They also looked at some US data which compared IQ scores with homophobic attitudes.
The conclusion: your intelligence as a child correlates strongly with socially liberal views. People with low IQs tend to be more in favour of harsh punishments, more homophobic and more likely to be racist. Interestingly, as these were IQ scores measured when young this does seem to be a measure of something innate, not merely exposure to ‘liberal’ views through education.
The inference is that what we call conservatism is a symptom of limited intellectual ability, signified by fear of the new and of outsiders, a retreat into tradition and tribal loyalty, and an unsophisticated disgust at sexual mores that deviate even slightly from the norm. Put bluntly stupidity correlates with insecurity, hatred, pessimism and fear, intelligence with confidence, optimism and trust.
Cue howls of outrage and not just from the right. In fact, left-wingers, liberals, call them what you will (and as I will argue these terms are far from interchangeable) have maintained something of an embarrassed silence about this. Liberals tend to dislike talk of innate intelligence and are distrustful of IQ tests and any hints of biological determinism. It might suit them politically to say their opponents are dim, but (they like to think) they are too polite to say so.
So what is going on here? Are conservatives really, statistically and meaningfully, less intelligent than socialists? Or is the story more subtle?
In fact there is nothing new in pointing to a link between social attitudes and intelligence. In 2010 the evolutionary psychologist Satochi Kanazawa, who works at the London School of Economics, analysed data from 20,000 young Americans and found that average IQ increased steadily from those who described themselves as ‘very conservative’ to those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal’. A study looking at British children, carried out by Ian Deary, reached a conclusion neatly summarised by the title of the paper: 'Bright Children become Enlightened Adults'. Other studies have found correlations between strong religiosity (a traditional marker of conservatism) and low intelligence.
Are socialists really more intelligent than conservatives? That depends how you define your terms
So case closed? Not really. The problem here is how we define ‘left’ and ‘right’ thinking, what this means socially and politically. A moment’s thought shows that the faultlines are not only blurred but they are legion, cris-crossing across traditional political strata and have changed through time.
As Steven Pinker points out in The Better Angels of our Nature, his marvellous book about the history of violence, social liberalism does not equate necessarily with economic socialism. He points to a study by the economist Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University in Virginia, who found that smart people tend to think like economists, being in favour of free trade, globalisation and free markets and against protectionism and state intervention in industry. This matches other findings that show that IQ correlates not with left-wing thinking as such, but with classic Enlightenment liberalism.
So a smart person (all else being equal) will probably be in favour of capitalism generally, and free-trade in particular. He or she will distrust state intervention in the markets, probably be suspicious of welfarism and deeply dislike protectionism, union closed-shops and tariffs. The smart person will believe that the have-nots should be encouraged to become haves by dint of their own labours and by the levelling of economic playing fields, NOT by taking money off the haves and giving it to them. In other words, Thatcherism. Hardly something we equate with the left.
But there is another side to what the Smarts believe. They are pro-immigration (immigration being a form of free trade, in this case in human labour). They are impeccably socially liberal. They do not care what consenting adults get up to in bed and would legalise gay marriage without a thought. They are as near as is possible to be colour blind and strongly favour sexual equality. They are internationalist and despise petty nationalism. And they are suspicious of the war on drugs and in fact of wars in general and do not believe the public should in general be allowed to own firearms. These are the social views, then, of the British metropolitan Left. So what is it then? Are dim people right or left? Here we meet the problem of defining liberalism and left-wingery.
A belief in economic redistribution of wealth does not correlate with social liberalism. The nations of the Cold War Communist bloc were ferociously ‘Left Wing’ in terms of a belief in statism, nationalised industries, basic equality and so forth but socially and in other ways they were far, far to the ‘right’ of any mainstream European or American party. The Soviet education system was brutally elitist – no wishy-washy mixed-ability nonsense there. Militarism and conscription were the norm. Communist states had and had an attachment to capital punishment, repression of homosexuals and paid only lipservice to sexual equality (Russian women were free to work, but they had to go back and do the cleaning and cooking when they had finished).
In today’s world the most ‘right wing’ attitudes are to be found not in the American Bible Belt but in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and parts of Asia as well as Russia. Across most of Africa the majority has an eye-wateringly brutal view of homosexuality (gays face long terms of imprisonment or worse in many southern and eastern African states). If you want to see robust attitudes to crime, sexuality, feminism, immigration and religious freedom go to somewhere like Sudan or Mauritania, Uganda or even Kenya and Jamaica.
The paradox is that the political discourse in nations such as these has been dominated by a leftish post-colonialism. The epitome of this paradox is, or was (attitudes have relaxed) Communist Cuba where attitudes to gays, criminals, and people of non-European descent would have softened the heart of a Mississippi Klansman.
Historical context: Homosexuality was illegal under Clement Attlee's 'left-wing' Labour government, but not under Margaret Thatcher's 'right-wing' Conservative administration
Paradox: In terms of social attitudes, Fidel Castro's communist Cuba was more 'right-wing' than Margaret Thatcher's Conservative administration
The correlation between left-wing views, liberal social attitudes and intelligence probably has a political significance only in advanced industrial societies where the values of the liberal enlightenment (a belief in freedom, fairness, reason, science, free trade, the rule of law, property rights and gentle commerce) govern society. It is probably true to say that in Britain, France, the US, Canada and so forth there is a correlation, and an interesting one, between intelligence and sexual liberalism and openness to people from a different culture and/or race. But these views can be held by some pretty stupid people as well (the politically correct anti-christmas, coffee-with-milk, crazy-islamist-welcoming brigade).
We probably need some new words. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ have become so tarnished by a century of propaganda and ill-advised alliances that they have become almost meaningless. We have a notionally ‘right of centre’ government in the UK and yet in its historical and geographical context the Cameron administration must be one of the most ‘left-wing’ administrations in the history of humanity – a consequence of modernity as much as anything else (under Clement Attlee gays were imprisoned, under Thatcher they were not). Increasingly, traditional right-wing views (blatant racism, sexism and homophobia) are simply seen as beyond the pale. In the US the current crop of Republican candidates mostly come across as a bunch of swivel-eyed fruitcakes to us, but none of them, from Mitt Romney downwards, would express the view that ‘the only good Indian is a dead Indian’ which is what the historically revered future ‘liberal’ president, Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1886.
Liberalism is a function then not only of intelligence but of modernity. Illiberal, ‘stupid’ states such as Mauritania and Saudi Arabia are, quite literally, stuck in the past (even if their citizens are not individually stupid). Plenty of bright people hold illiberal views (attitudes to violent crime do not fall into convenient left-right camps) and a few dim people are impeccably enlightened. Increasingly, clever people hold a series of views that may be construed as ‘right’ or ‘left’ simultaneously. The challenge for the political parties is to find a way of reflecting this and representing this voice on the national level. And that will require some very clever thinking indeed.
Note: I have a more extensive comment on the research concerned here
The Surge in Ruling-Class Verbal Abuse
by K. Lloyd Billingsley
As we recently noted, deploying the IRS, NSA, ATF, EPA and now the FCC against Americans shows that ruling-class abuse has become inclusive. But some think the abuse is not quite inclusive enough, or severe enough. Consider, for example, this remark about critics of Obamacare.
“There’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America.”
That is not a drunk in some waterfront bar in San Francisco, or an unemployed carnival worker in Boston. That is Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. Reid backtracked a bit, but one gets his drift. Senator, let this writer assure you that Obamabuse has no existential problem.
Cut loose from a job after more than 13 years with no warning or severance, in a conference call, this writer had a hard time finding health insurance. But with some effort he did find a plan he liked, and he wanted to keep it. Barack Obama, President of the United States, said he could keep it, but that was a lie. Obamacare slapped this writer with a 50-percent increase in premiums for decidedly inferior coverage with ludicrous deductibles.
As Screamin’ Jay Hawkins said, “I ain’t lyin.” Neither are millions of others with Obamacare horror stories, particularly those with serious medical issues who want to keep their doctor and hospital but now find they can’t do that. The government health websites remain largely dysfunctional and insecure, and the worst is yet to come.
To charge that this is all untrue, as Senator Reid did, is verbal abuse of the highest order but it does confirm a couple of things. Some politicians nurse a grudge against reality. And some politicians recall why the American and French Revolutions actually happened. The people of that day had experienced enough ruling-class abuse for one lifetime.
Meanwhile, elimination of Obamacare horror stories is not a difficult matter.
Let all Americans choose the quality health care they want, instead of forcing on them the seventh-rate health care the government wants them to have.
States Give Criminal Exemptions to Union Goons
California and others allow organizers to stalk, harass, and threaten.
Labor organizers and union enforcers are exempt from important criminal laws in some of the country’s largest states. California, Illinois, and Wisconsin are among the states that allow union members to stalk, harass, and threaten victims — so long as they are putatively doing “legitimate” union business.
As National Review Online recently reported, one such state, Pennsylvania, is pushing to repeal exemptions that give union members freedom from prosecution for stalking, harassing, or even threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction.
Other states have similar laws on the books, but unlike the Keystone State, they’re not even trying to fix this double standard.
California, for example, has a union carveout for stalking and trespassing. Those engaged in “collective bargaining, labor relations, or labor disputes” are also legally free to “willfully [block] the free movement of another person in a [public-transit] system facility or vehicle.” If an ordinary Californian did that, he or she would face a $400 fine and 90 days in prison.
The Golden State even exempts those “engaged in labor union activities” from prosecution for making “a credible threat to cause bodily injury.”
Illinois also has a stalking exemption when an individual is involved in an action related to “any controversy concerning wages, salaries, hours, working conditions, or benefits . . . the making or maintaining of collective bargaining agreements, and the terms to be included in those agreements.”
In Wisconsin, it is a felony to commit sabotage. However, Wisconsin’s penal code explicitly states that the law barring sabotage shall not be construed “to impair, curtail, or destroy the rights of employees and their representatives to self-organize, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to strike, [or] to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.”
These are just some of the many state-level labor exemptions, Glenn Spencer, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Workforce Freedom Initiative and author of a report on special state laws for labor unions, tells National Review Online. Pennsylvania, California, and the other states in the report “had a special status and unusual favoritism toward unions,” Spencer says.
To his knowledge, the laws above are still on the books and the existence of such state legislation shows that “while unions may have lost some of their clout on the federal level, they still have a substantial amount of influence at the state level.”
Large federal exemptions first came in the 1932 Norris-LaGuardia Act, which gave union workers and bosses broad immunity from injunctions.
This was followed by a loophole in the Hobbs Act of 1946 that exempts those attempting to achieve a “legitimate union objective” from prosecution for extortionate violence. Finally, in 1973 the Supreme Court affirmed the union exemptions of the Hobbs Act in United States v. Enmons.
Individual states subsequently bolstered these exemptions with their own laws, which have allowed union activists to stalk, harass, and commit traditionally illicit acts with no punishment.
According to Spencer, Pennsylvania is the first state he knows of with an active bill in the legislature to repeal these types of labor exemptions. Republican state representative Ron Miller’s bill is currently working its way through the state house.
For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (Updated as news items come in). GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten.
List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Pictorial) or here (Personal)
Posted by JR at 1:55 AM